PDA

View Full Version : Nader, Greens, Constitution Party, Paul Agree on Four Points


Don
09-11-2008, 07:12 PM
Whole article here. (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/10/ron-paul-endorses-the-third-party-field/)


Rejecting a specific entreaty from the McCain campaign, Ron Paul extended his support to a field of third-party candidates this morning, highlighting their shared frustration with the two-party system.

“Presidential elections turn out to be a charade more than anything else,” Paul said, and so he urged his supporters to vote for candidates who would expand the debate beyond the major party’s platforms.

The diverse coalition expressed their common concern over an increasingly aggressive foreign policy, the erosion of civil liberties, the growth of the national debt and commercial influence over federal monetary policy.

The candidates assembled in agreement were the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin, a former officer in Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority; the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney, a six-term Democratic congresswoman who had made a “declaration of independence from this current political system;” and independent candidate Ralph Nader, whom many consider partly responsible for Al Gore’s 2000 loss to George W. Bush.

Where they agree:


Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt:We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

Amazing, to find four such diverse political groups come together on four of the most critical issues the country faces, while Obama/McCain debate pigs and lipstick.

Are these issues more important to you than what you're hearing from the two major parties?

Captshady
09-11-2008, 07:51 PM
PREACH IT!!!!!!!!!!!

kuwisdelu
09-11-2008, 07:58 PM
I hate to say it, but for once, and probably only time in my lifetime, I agree with someone Ron Paul says. But Nader said it, too, so that softens the blow.

Although Obama and McCain aren't really the ones at the forefront of the pig/lipstick debate, it's their campaigns and the media.

Don
09-11-2008, 08:05 PM
I hate to say it, but for once, and probably only time in my lifetime, I agree with someone Ron Paul says. But Nader said it, too, so that softens the blow.

Although Obama and McCain aren't really the ones at the forefront of the pig/lipstick debate, it's their campaigns and the media.
The four points detailed here were the four major points of Ron Paul's campaign all along, but that's not what you heard about from the MSM.

Instead, they were busy digging for 'pig and lipstick' issues to report about, and it worked then, just as it's working today.

Makes sense, though, anyone who can get you and CaptShady to agree on something is obviously dangerous to the status quo. :D

Norman D Gutter
09-11-2008, 08:41 PM
'pig and lipstick' issues
I love it: a new addition to the American political lexicon.

blacbird
09-12-2008, 01:11 AM
Amazing, to find four such diverse political groups come together on four of the most critical issues the country faces, while Obama/McCain debate pigs and lipstick.

Are these issues more important to you than what you're hearing from the two major parties?


To reiterate something I just said in another thread, Barack Obama made the pig-lipstick comment in reference to John McCain's record of supporting Bush Administration policies. He was, in fact, trying to discuss a pretty important campaign issue; the media chose to light on an out-of-context sound-byte, and to keep it out of context, and the McCain camp likewise jumped on it, as a transparent means of deflecting the debate over McCain's actual record and performance in office. The only ones wanting to "debate" pigs and lipstick are the McCain camp; Obama wants to talk about McCain's record, and they don't. They know that's a loser straight out of the gate.

caw

Shadow_Ferret
09-12-2008, 01:19 AM
I still have no idea who this Ron Paul character is, but those are good issues. Are they more important to me then other issues? That's debatable. But really, on Foreign Policy, I have always believed in the Monroe Doctrine and Isolationism.

And why aren't the Liberatarians included in this group?

blacbird
09-12-2008, 01:23 AM
I still have no idea who this Ron Paul character is, but those are good issues. Are they more important to me then other issues? That's debatable. But really, on Foreign Policy, I have always believed in the Monroe Doctrine and Isolationism.

And why aren't the Liberatarians included in this group?

They are, if not in official name. Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman from Texas who ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket a few years ago, and made a Quixotic try for the Republican nomination this year.

He's also on record, via a newsletter he published for several years, as being pretty much an unreconstructed racist.

caw

Shadow_Ferret
09-12-2008, 01:29 AM
and made a Quixotic try for the Republican nomination this year.
Hmm. I must have blinked during that time.

Don
09-12-2008, 02:04 AM
He's also on record, via a newsletter he published for several years, as being pretty much an unreconstructed racist.
caw
A newsletter he was publisher of, but was not editing. Articles not written nor edited by him, and for which he apologized when he became aware of them.

Sounds kinda like some of the hatchet jobs the media's been performing on some of the other candidates, doesn't it?

It amazes me when people who are suspicious of the media's presentation of things they know the facts behind assume the media is correct in other issues where they may not have all the facts.

Don
09-12-2008, 02:07 AM
Hmm. I must have blinked during that time.
He was the one on the end that schooled Rudy on the 9/11 Commission Report at one of the early debates.

The following is paraphrased, transcripts available on the web.

Rudy: The terrorists hate us because we're free and rich.

RP: Actually, the 9/11 Commission says the terrorists hate us because we've been meddling in their politics and overthrowing their leaders for over 50 years. Maybe you should read the report. I'll send you a copy after the debate.

ETA: He also set a one-day fundraising record of $6.x million dollars on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

Don
09-12-2008, 02:09 AM
And why aren't the Liberatarians included in this group?
Bob Barr was invited to the press conference, accepted, cancelled a half-hour before the event, then went before the press two hours later to say 'screw unity, I want ALL the third-party votes.'

ETA: I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote. I WILL remember multi-quote.

Bubastes
09-12-2008, 02:13 AM
It amazes me when people who are suspicious of the media's presentation of things they know the facts behind assume the media is correct in other issues where they may not have all the facts.

Yes. Going to the primary sources is a wonderful thing and not done nearly enough.

donroc
09-12-2008, 02:31 AM
Why did this thread remind me of Lyndon Larouche? Some of Paul's alleged views? McKinney's definite views?

:Shrug:Where did Larouche's followers go?

rugcat
09-12-2008, 04:03 AM
Third party candidates often speak some real truths. Unfortunately, when you look at their entire platform and proposed solutions, their views can look a lot less appealing.